Subject: RE: "Salinger's Glass stories as a composite novel"
From: lray (lray@centenary.edu)
Date: Sun Aug 05 2001 - 15:48:25 GMT
Wonderful post Matthew. I agree wholeheartedly with you and am also not
looking forward to the monstrosity that seems to have become the media in the
21st century. Why is it that privacy is respected and valued so little? The
world's values seem to sadly be about what is entertaining and what yields the
best profit. While I accept an individual's desire for wealth, I do not
necessarily respect the consequences their actions in pursuing such things can
produce.
To get back to what I started out to say. Whether Salinger is famous or not
does not void his basic right to privacy. Because the man produced something
I venture to say magical, why must people invade the space he has chosen for
himself? We should in response respect his wishes if for no other reason than
in our immense gratitude as the small gift we can provide him after all he has
given us.
A still disillusioned 20 year old,
Levi
>===== Original Message From "Matthew Jones"
<columnatedruinsdomino@hotmail.com> =====
>Steve,
>
>If you buy a car off a salesman does that mean that you have the right to
>hide in his garden trying to snap a photo? Or insist on talking to him
>despite his insistance to be left alone? You bought Salinger's books, enjoy
>them, but leave him alone. You're obviously a passionate reader of JDS,
>however I disagree that anyone's life should be in the public domain against
>his wishes. In today's celebrity-obsessed media, is it that fanciful to
>imagine a writer not wanting to endure the tortures of fame?
>
>Recently, I was appalled to read about a TV show in Britain called "Big
>Brother". The concept is that a group of people submit themselves to months
>of 24-hour survelliance that is broadcast every day on TV and the internet.
>As a result of these broadcasts, these strange exhibitionists become
>celebrities (or part of what I like to call the modern "celebrity class").
>Their celebrity arises not because they have achieved something (artistic,
>scientific, academic, political, or athletic), but simply because they are
>on television, doing nothing but sitting around a house for months. It seems
>that commercial TV is assessing to what depths they can drag the quality of
>their output, while still retaining viewers who will gobble up the multitude
>of noisy advertisements.
>
>On a wider level, this sort of social phenomenon indicates that respect for,
>or even understanding of, the private sphere is fast diminishing as the
>western world idolises the status of celebrity. CNN, which pretends to have
>some editorial integrity, hunts down Thomas Pynchon against his wishes and
>jabs a camera in his face. And because he cowers, he is therefore abnormal!
>What has the poor guy done except write a few books that have contributed to
>the lives of their readers? I rarely watch TV, certainly not in my home, but
>I have seen news broadcasts in recent years that have made me sick to my
>stomach. A vivid image in my head: BBC World repeatedly broadcast footage of
>people at the precise moment they were informed of a plane crash that had
>killed their loved ones. All the agony on screen. This calls to mind the
>scene in 'La Dolce Vita' when the newspaper photographers are clamouring
>around that poor woman on the street who doesn't know that her children have
>been murdered by her husband. Yet the multi-national media organisations
>keep pumping this sort of thing out, and nobody seems to complain. I
>couldn't imagine anything more frustrating than being famous. Poor old JDS
>couldn't take a walk down the street without someone stopping him. Can you
>imagine a lifetime of this?
>
>When my children were young, I didn't let them watch TV while our family ate
>dinner. I thought that conversation would be a much better alternative -
>actual communication! In contrast, my grandson recently told me this his
>mother (my daughter-in-law) not only enjoyed watching loud commercial TV
>news (which I presume means updates on Burt Reynold's love-life) during
>dinner, but would hiss at him to be quiet if he tried to ask her something.
>Maybe I am going off on a bit of a tangent, as I am wont to do at my age,
>but I believe this says quite a lot about the modern world's obsession with
>television and celebrity, and how difficult it must be for Salinger to
>function as an artist in his time!
>
>Sometimes I am glad that I in my autumn years, because if the mass media
>continues on as it is, it could be a pretty miserable new century: an life
>assaulted on all fronts by useless information, with privacy devalued to the
>point that a quiet man is an oddity.
>
>Steven, few writers contribute any true spiritual insight to the lives of
>their readers. That Salinger has done this for us is more than we should
>reasonably expect. I feel immensely grateful for the stories he has chosen
>to make available, respect his wish to be left alone, and quietly hope there
>might be more stories some day.
>
>Matthew Jones.
>
>
>>From: "Steve Brown" <ganesha@rochester.rr.com>
>>Reply-To: bananafish@roughdraft.org
>>To: <bananafish@roughdraft.org>
>>Subject: Re: "Salinger's Glass stories as a composite novel"
>>Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 02:53:53 -0400
>>
>> > The photograph of Salinger in the Alsen book strikes me as quite
>> > anachronistic. In 1979, Salinger hadn't published for 14 years. Why not
>> > include one of the photos from his publishing period, if a photo is
>> > necessary at all? It isn't, because as you say, it "so much obscures
>>what
>>he
>> > is about it is almost funny". Surely the publishers knew that Salinger
>> > firmly disliked having his photograph published, and out of respect they
>> > should have refrained from doing so.
>>
>>What right does salinger have to hide behind the hedges of his home, paid
>>for and maintained by people like us, and the high schools across America
>>which purchase several thousand copies per year of catcher. Salinger
>>reminds me greatly of the business man in "The Little Prince" so upset to
>>be
>>disturbed, because he is so set on "matters of consequence" what is it
>>that
>>jd has to hide from? it seems that someone who has the depth of
>>understanding that I get from salinger, particularly the Glass stories,
>>would have no reason to be concerned with the well being of his publishing
>>profits, which is ostensibly the reason he so carefully protects his
>>written
>>works. I am sick of people arguing this or that about the privacy of
>>salinger, whether violating it is ridiculous, giving directions to his
>>house
>>and saying "don't bug him"...if salinger wants to hide...fine, hide under a
>>rock, take away your books, or die, just do something, stop staying so far
>>removed from your message if you are there to clarify it. for me, Franny
>>and Zooey was a strong, emotional, human, easily understood version of
>>Hinduism's The Bhagavad Gita. Giving a view of what is real and what isn't
>>is what salinger does for me, and as a scholar of Hinduism, Salinger really
>>speaks to me. but I'd like to hear what he has to say now...why did he
>>write these books, these stories...why does some of it stay published and
>>some remaining in the dark corners of musty ladies home journals and
>>Atlantic monthlys to be dug out by the determined fan? what gives salinger
>>the right to hide? the authors life is a public one, the life of anyone
>>supported economically by a fan-base is indebted to that fan-base, for
>>their
>>lively hood. salinger does get off the hook just because he's brilliant.
>>
>>that's what I think.
>>
>>Steve
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
>
>-
>* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
>* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Mon Sep 10 2001 - 15:42:12 GMT